Yes, AMERICA, GREENSPAN HAS NEW PLANS FOR BUYING DEBT.
The Bankster's Lackey, (Greenspan), wants to invest in foreign debt).
Greenspan has secret plans that Congress will Rubber Stamp
From: Dave Hayes
To: money-ethics@uwsa.com
Subject: [M-E] (fwd) Fed Reserve News
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 08:08:55 -0800
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001 21:29:16 EST,
This may be of interest to you:
Subject: Unreported Greenspan Testimony: Fed to be Subsidized Global
Merchant Bank
From: "Dick Eastman" eastman@wolfenet.com
Date: 03/07/2001 3:38 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
So the Federal Reserve wants to include foreign securities
in its portfolio and in its open market operations, while
at the same time, it wants the "tax refund" to be in the
locked away in member-bank "retirement" savings accounts
where it cannot be withdrawn and used (invested, consumed,
or held as liquidity) at the citizen's discretion.
When these two under-reported proposals of
Fed ChairmanGreenspan are viewed together
we see the intention of converting the
Fed into the most powerful global merchant
bank (investment bank) on earth.
Proposal #1: That the "tax rebate" to the
middle classes be given in the form of
locked-in (can't touch, can't withdraw)
saving accounts "retirement accounts" --
to fatten the pool of "other people's money"
that bank lending officers and investment
managers can draw upon to leverage their
global bullying. All of the funds are to
be put at the disposal of the big banks
with no "accountability" (i.e., no threat
that depositors can withdraw their deposits
if they do not like the way the proceeds
are being invested and managed.
This is a horrible proposal by itself, but when
one combines it with Greenspan's other
under-reported proposal, we see a monster
arise that no power on earth will be able
to contain. Jesus. I am not exaggerating.
Greenspan wants the Fed to be able to buy
foreign debt instruments (foreign bonds,
foreign stocks!), but what reason does he give?
Greenspan argues that with the reduction of
U.S. national debt (that the press has been telling us
is inevitable), the Fed will not have sufficient
bonds to conduct its open market operations
(i.e. to conduct its buying and selling government securities at
markets made with elite traders at the Federal
Reserve Bank in New York, the preferred way
the Fed injects and withdraws money into (out of)
the loanable funds market.
This is how the money supply and interest rates are really controlled.
The discount rate is really a trivial control instrument
in comparison, although it is the discount rate that
the establishment business media follows and reports
to the "ordinary" public.
But Greenspans proffered rational for globalization
of the NY Fed's open market transactions is
spurious.
Have we forgotten (or never been told) that the Fed
was originally sold to Congress in 1913 as a system
that did not require or involve open market operations
at all. (The open market operations began during
World War One -- and have remained the primary
instrument of monetary policy ever since -- and a real
money maker for the small elite band who "make market"
with the Fed.)
In the original plan -- the one identified with Carter Glass --
was that when more liquidity was needed in one
of the 12 regions of the system, that the reserve requirement
of the member banks in that region would be lowered, enabling
them to make more local loans. (Even populist William Jennings
Bryan, bought into this logic -- not realizing that he (and us all)
were victims of a bait and switch scam, a scam we all are still
paying for, even as 999 in a thousand don't understand how
the scam works. ) And, as the original design allowed,
when too much liquidity was pumped in -- so that prices
were increasing faster than the size of the "economic
pie," the regional governors could reduce the
reserve requirement, decreasing the volume of loans possible.
(Note: The reserve requirement is the percentage of all of
a bank's deposits that it must refrain from lending. There is
more complicated detail, but the simple lines of the system
portrayed here accurately capture the way the system works.)
So you see, figure-head Greenspan is telling a falsehood,
when he insists that the system must replace open-market
operations in U.S. securities with new power to buy and
sell foreign bonds and stocks as well. The truth is that
the Fed can replace open-market-operation controls with
reserve-requirment fine-tuning , i.e., it can switch to
the original design and thereby begin again to regulate the
money supply in a way that that is much better and fairer for the
entire country -- and not just the financial-elite insiders
that Mr. Greenspan exclusively serves. (The Fed is not
really the master. From the first it has served Morgans,
Rockefellers and European banking interests. Paul Warburg
came to this country to create a central bank, and the Fed
is his handiwork.)
If the Fed becomes a global and globalist merchant bank --
throwing its weight around -- it will become a greater
(and less accountable) monster than even the IMF or
the World Bank. It will be a merchant bank of such
power as Wall Street, The City, Frankfort, Paris
and Shanghai have never known.
Now that I see what the Fed is trying to do, I
would not be surprised, if the entire publicity
campaign about a "trillion-dollar budget surplus"
is a lie, a gigantic operation of dis-informational spin -- merely
for the purpose of permitting this -- normally unthinkable
legislation -- to appear harmless and irrelevant. (How
else could such a big lie get so far unchallenged?)
Beware of the Senate Banking Committee. Sen. Phil Grahm
was a professor at Texas A & M before going to Congress
in 1979. He rose in power because, like Gingrich, he became
a yes-man for the CFR (the Wall Street banking interest's stable of
yes-men and well placed hatchetmen.) In 1979 I was in the
economics doctoral program at A & M. I was able to learn a lot
about the character of Phil Grahm from his colleagues and former
students. The man is an anti-populist sycophant as deceitful and two-faced
as they come -- and, as I have concluded from recent banking legislation
(like the repeal of Glass-Steagle) more than willing to give away the
candy store to the power interests he is supposed to be protecting us from.
Phil Graham is not worthy to shine the shoes of Democrat and populist,
Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez who chaired the House Committee on Banking,
Finance, and Urban Affairs. (A typical statement of Gonzalez: "In
general, the Federal Reserve decision-makers are bankers or friends
of bankers. Decison-makers representing the concerns of agriculture,
small business, labor, consumer, and community groups are almost
unheard of. Yet advocates of price stability, even at the price of
stagnation, are well-represented at the FOMC.")
Under Phil Grahm, Greenspan's two proposals will be put
through without debate, without serious consideration of the
questions raised here. (People tell me my posts are too long
for anyone to read -- and whenever I (try to) proof-read them, I
always have ten new paragraphs to add -- but trust me,
there is more to be said against these proposals than I
have hinted at here.)
The Fed must be stopped, but it can't be stopped, if
people continue to trust the Senate, continue to fail to
lean heavily on their Senators to do what is right for
this country. The Senate is no longer answerable.
(You may not know that before the year of the Federal
Reserve Act, 1913, U.S. Senators were selected by
the legislatures of the respective states. The Senators
knew that if they passed the Federal Reserve Act
(and the Income Tax), that their states would never return
them to office. It was for that reason that big money
was spent to ram through a bogus "pro-democracy"
Constitutional amendment to make Senators chosen
by direct public vote. That way the Morgan interests
could assure Senators that if they vote for the Federal
Reserve Act and the Income Tax that they personally
would see to it that their campaign donations for their
state-wide runs for re-election would be sufficiently
bankrolled to ensure their return. And the Senate has
been in Wall Street's pocket ever since. (If you doubt this,
follow the patterns in the decisions of Trent Lott .)
GW Bush -- whom I like more every day -- does not understand
these issues and will never hear objections like these. Instead,
he will accept the leading of Phil Grahm and other CFR -certified
"wise men." (The Coucil on Foreign Relations are all mouthpieces
for globalist banking and transnational-corporation interests.)
I am a clerk at Blockbuster video, but there must be some men
who still hold some pieces of higher ground in this country
from which they can make a noble fighting stand against this crime.
(May God grant you wisdom and courage if you are one of these men.)
May I offer this suggestion. Perhaps it is too late to stop
the machinations of the Fed right now. Perhaps we should
first try to recapture the republic we lost, by having
state legislatures once again choose our senators for
us (i.e., by repealing the17th Amendemnt: "The
United States Senate shall be composed of two
Senators from each state, elected by the People
thereof ...") It is much harder for the big interests
to buy majoriities of state senators and representatives
than to drop a big wad of money and buy the
advertising and public relations sufficient to "fool
some of the people some of the time," that "time"
being election day.
If "campaign finance reform" is really a good idea,
it must be because under the present system we
are getting an inferior selection of Presidents, Senators
and Congressmen. Think about it. If the candidates,
the men elected under a "reformed system", were the
same men we are getting now, the reform would not
be worth it, it would make no difference.
But no "campaign finance reform" can solve the
basic problem of the undue influence of the
super rich. After all, the very news reports we
all rely on and depend on to be impartial and
accurate -- are actually nothing more than the
organs of rich men's political activism. Ask
yourself, In the market for political news,
whom do the suppliers really supply, really
attempt to satisfy? The public with its demand for
reliable and relevant information? Or the billionaires
with their demand for programming public opinion
to further their own ends?
Only three months after the Dec. 1913 passage of the the
Federal Reserve Act, John Swinton, former Chief Editor
of the New York Times, in a speech at the annual dinner of
the Associated Press in 1914 said the following about the
American press:
"There can be no question of an independent press. Not
one of you dares to utter his honest opinion. We are the
instruments and vassals of rich men behind the scenes.
We are puppets. Those men pull the strings and we dance.
Our time, our talents, our lives and our powers all belong
to those men--we are intellectual prostitutes..."
So in what year, as we slogged from the Age of Millionaires
to the Age of Billionaires, did Swinton's statement cease being true?
Or, if rich mens' poodles, the house-trained left and the house-trained
right, still yap querulously from their masters' laps, how will the
campaign reforms that the rich men are trying to shove down our
throats -- really end the problem of rich-man dominance?
Let's all become Anti-17th Amendment Activists today -- even
as we fight the foredoomed struggle to halt the people behind
the Fed in their latest reach for even bigger helpings of global
economic dominance.
Dick Eastman
223 S. 64th Ave
Yakima, Washington
Every man is responsible to every other man.
Have a nice day---ernieB, retired and like it!!!
Four months ago, Greenspan said he preferred paying down the debt to tax cuts. Now, he, like the Supreme Court majority, has "gone political". Like the Media, they are, all, in the pockets of Big Oil and controlled by the Banksters.
MONEY TALKS
Cal-Neva.Com
Home Page
Copyright Notice:
